So he says. I don’t automatically assume that there is no self interest on his part.
6 Likes
It’s completely fair to be skeptical of Andrade’s stated intentions. It’s not fair to present this situation without acknowledging his stated intentions and role in the affair.
I am a little curious about the other 6 acres, but given the tone of the MSN article, it would have gone into gory detail if there was anything the least bit damning or fishy going on with that.
2 Likes
It can easily be both. Presumably he thinks that everyone getting paid a reasonable amount for their land rights is a good outcome for everyone, himself included.
2 Likes
There are certainly more property rights than “the right to be compensated for your land that you weren’t ‘using’ right now”. Unless it gets eminent domainned. Again, Zuck assuming he gets to buy my land just because I am not utilizing it in a way he understands or approves of, is a dick move. He should have dealt with this before buying the land, as any land buyer should know.
5 Likes
The majority owners are selling. The minority owners don’t really have a choice about this. This way they are being compensated for something they may not even know they own.
1 Like
He wants to make sure the other owners are notified that they are owners and to be paid a fair price for their inheritance.
So he wants to give them “free” money? That’s so nice of him.
And if they can’t be found in a short period of time then he’ll make sure they lose their claim to their property?
And he’s not even interested in actually using the land?
That’s real nice of him.
/s
It also doesn’t matter if people are actually using the land they are entitled to or not since Zuck himself is not buying with the intended purpose of using it either. He’s buying so he won’t have humans around him.
2 Likes
My impression is that he isn’t as much interested in the weird little property-title-scraps; but in the fact that, so long as they remain out there, some people are legally entitled to traverse is property to reach them, if they wish.
This doesn’t seem to be an American thing as much(unless you count the stories about beachfront property owners attempting to disguise and/or wall off public beaches); but it reminds me a lot of the issues that sometimes arise in the UK, when a landowner wants to get rid of a ‘public right of way’ footpath/trail that was recognized by some mysterious common law alchemy at some point in the past; but now displeases them.
The actual amount of land at question is peanuts; but it creates certain rights of access to his landholdings; and Zuck is a man who knows the value of privacy; having made considerable money selling ours, and he has been real careful about that sort of thing; and willing to buy up substantial amounts of surrounding property to shield his core holdings from access or visibility.
In California, that just meant buying out the neighbors; apparently Hawaii has some more idiosyncratic procedures.
6 Likes
no, just the usual douche bag
1 Like
Hawaii is the WWF of US property rights. Everyone wants a piece of what legitimately should belong to the Hawaiians. It’s far too late to remedy that, but at least Zuckerberg is taking the most ethical course available. He ain’t the villain here.
2 Likes
Do you have any evidence for this or is it just based on your general opinion and background knowledge about Zuckerberg?
I’m no fan of the guy, but I prefer to be charitable about people’s intentions out of a sense of reciprocity (I’d prefer people were charitable about my intentions).
2 Likes
I don’t think @fuzzyfungus was really imputing any negative motives to Zuckerberg. Not wanting people to have the right to go on his land is probably exactly why he wants to ensure he has sole right to the land. From the outside it looks all win-win - Zuckerberg ensures he has exclusive rights to land he purchased and a bunch of people who didn’t even know they had rights to land get a small windfall.
If there’s any nastiness, it’s going to start after some of the people say they will not sell and assert their rights as indigenous people to have access to traditional lands.
All that being said, if you get a letter in the mail saying Mark Zuckerberg is suing you, that might induce some well justified stress, even if later you found out he was suing you for the right to give you money.
6 Likes
Consider a situation where you leave a jacket with $100 in the pocket in a relative’s closet, and that you’ve forgotten that you had it. I’m saying this is “free money” in the same sense that the $100 is “free money” when the jacket is returned – it’s technically already the “recipient’s” property, but the “recipient” was unaware of it and so finding it again is from their perspective free gain.
I’m arguing that this seems to be a good analogy for what’s going on here. These people don’t know they’re entitled to use Zuckerberg’s property and in all likelihood are not interested in doing so. So at worst Zuckerberg ruthlessly steals something that’s useful to him but not useful at all to them and which they aren’t even aware they own. More likely, they respond to the suit by claiming their title and they get money in return for property they didn’t realize they own and have no use for. Hence “free money”.
I’m not claiming Zuckerberg is doing this to be “nice” and it’s pretty shitty to put those words in my mouth.
On the contrary – he’s the only co-owner who is interested in actually using/upkeeping/paying taxes on the land.
See, this is why this feels less like righteous outrage about a billionaire making a land grab and more like grinding an axe against a wealthy, successful person. This is a bad look for lefties. Save your outrage for cases where actual harm is being done. There’s plenty of that going on in the world, and this is petty bullshit.
5 Likes
That’s a much more reasonable framing than that of @fuzzyfungus, who I read as presenting the two motivations as mutually exclusive. There’s a good chance that was an unfair snap judgment on my part, though.
2 Likes
Did you miss the part where it only goes to auction IF NOBODY PAYS ALL THE DECADES OF DUE TAXES on this properties?
Most of these plots were abandoned and forgotten by the owners.
1 Like
I like your analysis on this situation and think it sounds pretty spot on.
1 Like
This happens surprisingly often. My dad had a distant great-aunt who died without heirs. By the time they sorted it out, there were dozens of relatives who were entitled to a little piece of her estate, which was basically a run-down house and a little land… and several years of back taxes. They ended up selling it to pay the taxes, and everybody got a little cash out of it. They were delighted.
Nope, didn’t miss that, no need to shout 
Still wondering why one of the richest men on the planet somehow didn’t do the due diligence that’s expected of every potential land buyer.
I always liked how Bigend’s character was so ambiguous; I don’t recall him doing anything villainous yet there was so much about him that was sinister.
3 Likes
FWIW the “‘quiet’ lawsuit” phrase originated in the linked MSN article.
Buying out the neighbors is exactly what he’s trying to do, the problem is who the neighbors are turned out to be a complicated mess so he turned to the courts to sort it out. The quiet title action isn’t idiosyncratic to Hawaii, they also happen in California.
3 Likes
